Webb And Petraeus Square Off Over Iran Diplomacy (VIDEO)

Spencer Ackerman, writing for the Washington Independent highlights two key portions of today's confirmation hearings for Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, fueled by tenacious questioning from Democratic Senator Jim Webb, who continues to be a firm source of well-informed, yet softly stated pushback to the administration's foreign policy follies.

Webb went back and forth with Odierno, working to pin him down on what the "endpoint" of the military mission in Iraq was supposed to resemble and what conditions could precipitate the end of our occupation. Via Windy:

Webb isn't satisfied. But what does U.S. military mission in iraq look like, even if those conditions are met? "It'll adjust over time. We'll have less and less responsibility for drect combat... Over time, we'll change to advisory missions." But how long will that take? "It's unknown... I think that's a policy decision, how long we'd want to have contact with the Iraqi government in future."

But what's the endpoint? Say U.S. meets all these conditions. Should there be a continued U.S. presence there? "That's a discussion... for policy." Webb won't let it go! What do you think, Gen. Odierno? Will there be a need for the U.S. military in Iraq if those conditions are met? "I do not." Finally.

Now that's how an adult asks a question.

Then he turned to Petraeus, skeptically critiquing the general's use of the word "malign" as a means of describing "Iranian influence," and asked the general, "Would you agree that historically one of the realities we have do deal with is some sort of Iranian influence in the region?" Petraeus agreed, offering the caveat that he's hope such influence would be "constructive."

WEBB: General Petraeus, there's some language in response to questions that were submitted to you for the record that go to Iran that I would like to get some clairifcation or give you the oipportunity to clarfify. You use the word malign as an adjective, as someone who's written nine books, I'm trying to struggle with how this fits in to what you're saying here. You say we will continue to expose you the extent of Iran's malign activity in Iraq, and then you say on the next page, our efforts in regard to Iran must involve generating international cooperation and building consensus to counter malign Iranian influence, and then you speak about its...there are consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region. Can you clarify for us...how are you using those words?

PETRAEUS: I can, Senator. What I'm talking about there I am characterizing that influence, it is malign and it is lethal and it is illegitimate. The arming, training, funding, and directing of militia extremists who have killed our soldiers...is very malign indeed it's the same situation with what they're doing...

WEBB: In the interest of time, here, because you've given those answers, would you agree that historically one of the realities we have do deal with is some sort of Iranian influence in the region? I'm not talking about the specific military incidents. I am talking about the reality of dealing with the region.

PETRAEUS: I have always stated, in fact, that there will be Iranian influence and that the hope is that the Iranian influence is constructive...

Webb turned on that and began laying out the case that such "constructive" influence was more likely to be achieved through diplomatic contact with Iran, "We would hope," Webb said, "that we would be able to see some creative leadership in terms of how to bring a different set of diplomatic circumstances into play." Using his command of history, Webb drew a fitting comparison with China (like Iran, "rogue...with nukes, with an American war on its border"), who were similarly engaged in "malign" influence of the war in Vietnam. Petraeus managed to run out the clock without offering much in terms of substance in response, but after a week of the Bush administration painting any sort of diplomacy as appeasement, Webb got a vital argument to the contrary on the record.

Comments

[pithymaxim]

Webb said the essentially same thing as Obama did during Petraeus's last appearance and was ridiculed as being naive and academic while Clinton was heralded as a genius for throwing around the term "battlefield geometry". Obama said exactly the same thing. Why are folks getting hard-ons about Daddy Webb?

[Kynn]

The biggest reason is that you CAN'T call Jim Webb naive on national security. You'd look like a freaking idiot if you tried.

You can sorta get away with talking points on how Obama doesn't have national security or foreign policy experience since there's nothing like Webb has on his resume; Secretary of the Navy, Vietnam Vet, etc.

Personally, calling Obama naive on it is dumb too, the guy has some of the best advisers in the world on his team.

And at least he's smart enough not to call for the destruction of various countries.

[Liberal2]

"...The biggest reason is that you CAN'T call Jim Webb naive on national security. You'd look like a freaking idiot if you tried....Webb has on his resume; Secretary of the Navy, Vietnam Vet, etc...."

Ha! Of course one can call Webb naive on national security, then the question is who's right. Here's *MY* point: having your nose in the mud of a Vietnam jungle doesn't make one competent on national security, otherwise Forrest Gump is your guy. Being SecNav doesn't either. In the 1930s, Navy brass declared battleships the most important class of ship; aircraft carriers were for protection, reconnaissance, and fire correction information (forward observation). Pearl Harbor changed the defintion of the Navy's role in national security and the aircraft carrier became force projection.

The right person is someone who understands national security in the 21st century. Not someone who's held certain jobs.

[realpolitic]

Pithy, yes, democracy is sloppy, isn't it? I guess we should all just let the administration have its way and not question military leaders or anyone else for that matter.

[lovethesinner]

Can you smell the fear in these comments for this story about Webb taking Petraeus to school about language and the limitations of force?

They fear him.

They fear the force of language. We can explain their folly, and they have nowhere to hide.

Obama-Webb '08

[joselopez]

The sad part about this exchange on Iran, is that if you use the six degrees of separation concept, IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLING OUR SOLIDERS IN IRAQ!!

As long as we spend billions on oil from Iran, we are providing the Iranina government the funds that they use to make/buy the weapons they give to the terrorists that are then used in Iraq against our soliders.

[Kynn]

We don't buy oil from Iran.

However, thanks to Reagan we sold a good amount of the weapons Iran has to Iran.

[joselopez]

I have analyzed all the candidates for VP, and I do not see any candidate that fits into the position as perfectly as Jim Webb.

The Obama campaign has run a smart campaign to date and have smart people that I believe will come to the same conclusion I have come to.

I just hope Webb accepts if offered.

[Krikkit]

He will. He is being "floated" now. These showcases for his talents are not coincidences.

[Liberal2]

"...I have analyzed all the candidates for VP, and I do not see any candidate that fits into the position as perfectly as Jim Webb...."

Right. We desperately need a VP who packs a pistol in his luggage, between his socks and Fruit of the Looms, when flying between DC and Virginia.

[econdr]

Watch your mouth buddy. He's our future president.

And we are in a time of war.

Questioning Barack Obama's judgement is unpatriotic.

Are you with us, or against us?

[Snerdgronk]

BAM!

[dadw5boys]

WHOA DUDE!!!!!!!!!

WE ARE VOTING PEOPLE OUT WHO HOLD THOSE VALUES THAT PREVENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH WITH THREATS!!!!!!!!!

[JudgeCrater]

Someday soon I hope this slogan gets marketed to people who don't give a crap about CAFE standards or who buy huge SUV's. All you need to do is look at who has the oil around the world to realize that it's a heck of lot more applicable there than in the way BushCorp has been using it.

[hopelessobama]

why does obama continue to quote kennedy when talking about his desire to meet without preconditions? why does he ignore that kennedy refused to meet with castro and instead ordered his assassination, as well as the coup on president diem in south vietnam? why does obama fail to acknowledge that JFK called his summit in Vienna with krushvev a disaster that was the single biggest self inflicted wound during the cold war? why does obama ignore the fact that kennedy's weakness at Vienna led directly to the cuban missle crisis? why does obama lie again and again and again???

[Snerdgronk]

Just curious ... Did Kennedy come outta this thinking dialog between nations was MORE important, or LESS important, I wonder?

Snerd

[econdr]

Well put. The problem here, Snerd, is that you are using logic and reason to argue with a moronic racist who cannot string a sentence together.

I can't wait til obama raises his taxes....

[EndAllWars]

Wait, what weakness??? Kennedy placed nukes on USSR's borders in Turkey and built listening posts all around USSR. He boosted the potency of the American nukes, exposed the Soviet radar weakness by overflights onto the Soviet territories. He also constantly harrassed them by U2 spy flights with pictures that showed their true strength (as well as uncovered the presence of the missiles in Cuba). In that Vienna meeting Khrushchev huffed and puffed because they felt under the gun from all sides by JFK's moves. You could take JFK's moves as pressure tactics that forced the Soviets into make that dumb (though very dangerous) move. The move exposed their weakness so badly that they put their tails between their legs and retreated without getting the Americans to do the same in Turkey, and it discredited Khrushchev so badly that he was thrown out by his own party for the monumental loss of prestige. From that point on, the Soviets never put themselves in a position to challenge American supremecy so blatantly. I'm neither a JFK fan nor for wars. But that statement contradicts the end-result.

[GeoLee]

According to one of Kennedy's own advisors talkign on TV tonight, Kennedy himself said meeting with Kruschev was a huge blunder,,,no need to kill the messenger.

[FirstShirt]

You are both right. Kennedy was a good peace loving liberal. :)

[Krikkit]

You can't take a single failure of diplomacy and use it to say diplomacy fails. Nor can you use the example of covert and overt military action to show that all diplomacy was rejected.

Diplomacy and war are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are many highly educated people who would say that the military option is one arm of diplomacy. It's called "the stick" as in "carrots and sticks."

[dadw5boys]

Well most people leave the stick at home till it is needed. Flood the area with carrots and even cabbage if needed, hell make coleslaw if that is what it takes to keep thing civil.

What is the rush?

REPUBLICANS ACT LIKE THE FAT KID AT AN ALL YOU CAN EAT FOOD BAR !!
OVERFILLING THEIR PLATES AND EATING FAST TO REFILL THEIR PLATES AS IF THEY ARE AFARAID THE FOOD WILL DISAPPEAR IF THEY TAKE TIME TO TASTE THE FOOD.

[Independentjunkie]

Amazing - for having a demographic of educated , elite... so many comments here are of school yard kids. " Webb showed petrus off" blah blah..

Do you guys even understand foreign policy ? ... Did you even understand the conversation? That’s directed at most not all Obama supporters. can you add to the conversation?

Let me add mine.... china although a communist country, still was a state that could be negotiated with. The war we are fighting is against stateless ideologies...

Now I'm too sure you kids would even fathom what i said, to continue an intelligent conversation...

because quite frankly --- most of you are AA's .

[LeftLeanWing]

control -alt - delete

[CocteausTwin]

WTF does that mean? "most of you are AA's"

[LeftLeanWing]

we know what it meant .....

[econdr]

what does this mean? "Now I'm too sure you kids would even fathom what i said, to continue an intelligent conversation..." I mean. No. I can't fathom what oyu are saying.

That's broken English buddy. Here's some advice: when you are arguing that you want intelligent conversations, why don't you check your grammar and make sure your sentences are coherent.

And whats that about "a war against stateless ideologies". The entire clip was about Iran and the US, both of which are states.

[Snerdgronk]

Ahhh ... Nicely 'stated'

Snerd

[imusintheevening]

I was considering a reply, but I have decided that I am too elite and you are too accusatory and narrow-minded, so I would rather read my latest copy of Foreign Affairs, so STFU.

[econdr]

OHH I GET IT.
AA stands for african americans.

You sound like an ignorant racist.

[wolverinesm]

Sound like?

[mcole]

Web, Biden, Hagel, even McCAskill....anyone but Clinton!!

[mahalosili]

Lol. Even Gen. Petraeus is saying that we would have to deal with our enemies (particularly Iran).

My Question is: Are you sure Gen. Petraeus is serving under the Bush administration? Seems to me that he's under the Obama Administration. :D In your face McSame!!!!

[LouisPWu]

Webb made General Betrayeus look like an idiot. Oh, wait, General Betraeus' heredity beat Webb to it.

[LeftLeanWing]

control -alt - delete

[Liberoservative]

Ermm

Main Entry:
1ma·lign
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈlīn\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English maligne, from Anglo-French, from Latin malignus, from male badly + gignere to beget — more at mal-, kin
Date:
14th century

[AllAmericanAmericanBoy]

Emmm

Perhaps Mr. Webb uses a dictionary from one of the more recent centuries.

[Phoebus]

Jim Webb is a real American hero. I'm more impressed every time I hear him speak. He is a real patriot not like the war mongering chicken hawks who've managed to drive us into this ditch in Iraq. He'd make a great VP, but I'm happy to have him in the senate and speaking out. We need more like him.

[CaptainStormfield]

Huzzah! I wish he were running for president.

[GeoLee]

Lordy, me, too, and I guess I will be labeled a heretic for saying so. Comparing his resume to Obama's he still comes out ahead...especially with national, military, international and even authorship....but wait, he did not serve in the state senate.

[HippieChick]

I just saw McCain on Ellen's show (ackward). He professes he is looking forward to a debate with Obama (mentioned 'or Clinton' as an afterthought). There is too much history that supports the path of diplomacy with "rogue" nations; no neocon spin can be supported when the light of historical truth shines upon it.

[BoThomasReed]

Webb is a solid choice for VP.
Vietnam vet
Not an establishment candidate
Can help Obama bring Clinton's base back into the fold
Also, let's not forget this is also the guy that wanted to punch Bush in the face....talk about an attack dog!

Obama/Webb '08

[lisakaz2]

I know. Me likey! There are A LOT of good choices. Obama could go in a lot of directions. That's why I see Clinton as such a non-starter.

[GrandpaMcCain]

I like you even more. :-D

[We]

In 1953, Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Jr, as head of the CIA, led the successful campaign to overthrow the first democratically elected Iranian government, to install a dictator Shah. In return, Iran received pennies on every dollar of oil produced on their land by British (BP) and American oil companies.

Everyone knows this including Sadr: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

It's clear why America's apparently altruistic goal of spreading democracy to that part of the world (starting with Iraq!) is regarded with extreme suspicion.

I wonder whether Webb or Obama will address this? This will have to be acknowledged as part of any constructive diplomatic strategy.

[pfc1369]

Kermit Roosevelt Jr. was not the head of the CIA.

He was, however, the chief operations officer in Iran who successfully retored the Shah to power in 1953, laying the groundwork for many of the horrors that ensued from yet another misguided U.S. intervention.

[We]

Thanks for your correction. Why doesn't 1953 garner even some media exposure? Obama, Webb, Hagel should point to this key issue. I wonder what McCain would do if he was asked to respond.

[LeftLeanWing]

i doubt if either would directly address this. During one of the Republican debates; Rep Ron Paul brought this up for discussion but then he got ridiculed and slapped down with 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 verb 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

If Obama mentions it it would be labeled: Blame America First.

But this is something that an Obama administration surrogate could mention and let it stir around a bit in mediasphere before addressing it directly; it would need to be in the form of a historical question. SO it can be responded to as historical fact .

Better yet a famous Jewish movie producer should do a documentary.....

[imusintheevening]

Yes, it is good to remember Operation Ajax in 1953. We have been meddling in their governments for the past 55 years, replacing their democratic government with a dictator of our choice, and maligning them. The amazing thing is that, in general, Iranians like Americans, so we should build a diplomatic solution and flush the Bush and Bolten types down the gurggler.

[FlowerGirl]

This is the same Petraeus who let the White House write "his" report to the President on progress in the Iraq war.

[GrandpaMcCain]

Good point.

[McFlipFlop]

Interesting old, short article on Webb that gives insight into his positions.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1200712,00.html

[GrandpaMcCain]

Interesting.